It is evident that the apostles understood this baptism to be with water, since they taught it and practised it throughout their ministry. We shall take [pg 155] time and space to refer to but two or three instances of the administration of this ordinance recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. The first is that of a Christ commissioned preacher by the name of Philip, who was sent by an angel to preach the gospel to a Scripturally ignorant man of Ethiopia. Unlearned as he was, he readily understood from the preaching of Philip the importance of water baptism; therefore when they came to a certain water he said, “See here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Acts 8:36. By reading the following verses you will learn that this man was baptized in water and God witnessed to his approval by sending him rejoicing on his way. Obedience to the commands of God brings a joy to the Christian heart.
The second instance of baptism to which we wish to invite your attention is that of the devout Cornelius. He sent for Peter to learn more concerning the ways of the Lord. Peter came and told them of Jesus, of his resurrection and his power to save. As he spoke the Holy Ghost fell upon all them which heard his words. Then said Peter, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. How can an instance of water baptism be more plainly recorded? This occurred some eight years after the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. To teach the abolition of this ordinance at the cross, in the face of these plainly stated instances [pg 156] of baptism, only proves to us the blinding and deceptive power of the spirit of error.
Mode Of Baptism.
Many of the professed teachers of the gospel have become very liberal. “We all have a right to our opinion,” so many say; and “a thing becomes right unto us if we believe it to be right.” Because of this teaching and the varied opinions, there have originated in the minds of the people several different modes of baptism. But this great liberality finds no warrant in the Word of God. The Scriptures teach that “there is one body.” Eph. 4:4. If I should hold in opinion, as many do hold, that there are many bodies, would my opinion prove the Word of God to be in error? Let me say here, with emphasis, that there can be but one true, rightful body. If the Catholic body should be the right body, it is the only body upon the earth that is right. If the Presbyterian body is the right and true body, it is the only body. And so with any other denominational body. If we were a member of the Methodist body we would have to believe that that was the one true body and that all the others were wrong. If there be but one body, how can two bodies be that one body when those two bodies are different?
There is but one Holy Spirit, one true Lord, one gospel faith, and one true mode of baptism. God has not left us to follow our own peculiar fancies, but all [pg 157] must go the same way. Whatever is required of one individual, that same thing is required of every other individual. If sprinkling is a right mode of baptism it is the only right mode, and all others are wrong. If pouring is right it is the only mode that is right. If three dips, face forward is right it is the only mode that is right. If one single immersion is right it is the only mode that is right. The Lord did not set the example in all these different ways. He was baptized. He also baptized by proxy, and we believe that he thus baptized in the same manner he was baptized. This one mode was all they understood by baptism. The apostles perhaps had seen the Lord baptized, they administered baptism under his direction, and when he commissioned them with the authority to administer baptism after he had ascended to the Father, they did not question him as to which mode. The word baptism meant but one thing and the same thing unto them all. In the after years of their ministry they practised just what they had seen their Lord practise.
Now let us learn from the plain, easy language of the Scripture the mode as administered by John, the Lord and the apostles. In the third chapter of Matthew the inspired writer has given an account of John's baptism, which we kindly invite you to read. Now the way to correctly understand the Scripture is to take it in its easiest, plainest, most sensible way. Do not attempt to give it some complicated, mysterious meaning, but receive it as you would any easily [pg 158] understood historical fact of this present time. If you should read in your county paper of a man down by one of the rivers of your adjoining county who was administering baptism to the people, and the whole neighborhood round about went out to him and were baptized of him in the river, and when he had baptized a certain individual he went up straightway out of the water, what idea would you form as to the mode of the baptism? Would you think it was a little water sprinkled on the head somewhere in a meeting-house? There is nothing in the account to convey such an idea. How unreasonable it would be for you to study to change the meaning of the plain account and mystify it because it was not congenial to your desires.
Suppose you should read in your paper of two men traveling along the way. One of them had never heard of Jesus nor of the ordinance of baptism; the other talked to him of the Savior, of his death and his resurrection, and how he had authorized him to go into all the world and preach this gospel to every creature, and he that believed and was baptized, the same should be saved. And as they traveled on their way they came to a certain water, and the one said to the other, “See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?” The other replied, “If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest.” He answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Then they stopped their carriage and they went down both into the water and there the one was baptized of the [pg 159] other, and when they came up out of the water the one went one way and the other another way, and they saw each other no more. What idea would you form as to the mode of baptism? This is all very plain to the candid heart.
The other instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament do not express so clearly the mode as the two we have given, yet they can not with propriety be made to express anything contrary to immersion. The apostle Paul in his letter to the Roman brethren speaks of baptism as a burial. Rom. 6:4. This only confirms in our mind (concerning the mode) the ideas suggested by the baptism of the Savior and of the man of Ethiopia. For yet greater clearness we will present a few thoughts suggested to us by the recent writings of a brother, which we consider very conclusive.
A word, perfectly synonymous with another word can be used in its stead with the same correctness of diction. As, for example, “The snow is slowly descending from the dark cloud.” To use a word synonymous with “descending” in the above sentence it must express the same thought and present the same elegance of style. We find such a synonym in the word “falling.” “The snow is slowly falling from the dark cloud.” The idea expressed by these two sentences is precisely the same, and both are good grammar. Let us now read Rom. 6:4: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” To find a word [pg 160] synonymous with baptism it will not deprive the word “burial” of its proper meaning. Try the word “sprinkle.” “Therefore we are buried with him by sprinkling into death.” Please read Mat. 3:5, 6; Mark 1:9; John 3:2, 3, and use the word sprinkle or pour where the word baptize is used, and note the great absurdity. Why is so much time spent in discussion over declarations so simple, clear and plain? Because of the perversion of plain language by the spirit of error to a self-conceited mind.